« More Hillary Absurdity | Main | Consumer Directed Health Care »
January 30, 2007
Liberals For Porn, Minimum Wage
Ross Douthat responds to my post against Girls Gone Wild saying:
Yes indeed - thank God that regular, all-American porn doesn't have anything to do with rape or drugs or pressured consent or economic exploitation. It's a shame that bad apples like Joe Francis have to go and ruin a perfectly unproblematic industry.
Well, does "all-American porn" (I never suggested GGW was French, by the way) feature "rape or drugs or pressured consent or economic exploitation?" If it does, I'm all for bringing the long arm of the law, or the loud chant of activists, against it. But I get the feeling Douthat is actually suggesting porn itself is a clearly problematic industry that's inseparable from those vices, along the lines of Irving Kristol's "A liberal is a person who sees a fourteen-year-old girl performing sex acts onstage and wonders if she's being paid minimum wage," which is slightly different.
Aside from the scurrilous insinuation that liberals condone underage sex (Mark Foley, anyone?), Kristol's not entirely off-base. I'd prefer a living wage, of course, and his quote says nothing about health benefits, retirement plans, or lunch breaks, but the conditions under which workers of legal age enter into contracts and labor is of concern to me. If they entered into their contract, however, without compulsion or intimidation and are being fairly compensated, their decision to have sex on camera doesn't much bother me. That said, if Douthat knows of other pornography companies that engage in GGW's labor practices, I'll happily join his coalition. Porn workers of the world rise up! You have nothing to lose but your non-work related chains!
January 30, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
I'm all for bringing the long arm of the law, or the loud chant of activists...
Your view of "the system" seems to include the activists as just another equivalent player as the law in controlling society as if there is statutory authority for "the mob".
Posted by: Fred Jones | Jan 30, 2007 12:19:43 PM
The American porn industry is hardly monolithic. And even amongst the things that the various content producers have in common, the diversity of the content providers is much more extreme than in, say, mainstream films.
So it's much more than questionable to paint the entire industry with a single brush.
Speaking in glittering generalities, there have been trends and fads that have pushed the industry in one direction or another. To characterize it entirely as a lecherous group of drug addled victims and evil producers is a bit more than simplistic.
In the last 30 years four innovations have changed, radically, what the industry was and what it is today. Those innovations:
1) Aggressive prosecution of mob ties to the business
2) The VCR
3) The internet
4) Hotel pay per view
Just something to think about.
Posted by: ice weasel | Jan 30, 2007 12:23:55 PM
So, what you're saying is that the bad thing with this is that the wages of porn are too low, and that government should intervene to subsidise it -- so that
it becomes more profitable (and possible) to live a life this way?
How not to win back the red states:
Raise taxes, subsidise prostitutes!
Posted by: Chris | Jan 30, 2007 12:25:22 PM
"If they entered into their contract, however, without compulsion or intimidation and are being fairly compensated"
How do you define fairly compensated? It seems to me, that if they enter a contract without compulsion or intimidation then whatever they agreed to as compensation is fair. If they want to do it for free, fine. If they get $1000 an hour, fine too.
Posted by: Dave Justus | Jan 30, 2007 12:37:51 PM
"If they entered into their contract, however, without compulsion or intimidation and are being fairly compensated, their decision to have sex on camera doesn't much bother me."
Don't you know that God said that sex was evil and dirty?
Posted by: Petey | Jan 30, 2007 12:42:33 PM
Yeah, Chris, because nobody in the red states watches porn. They spend their alone time reading Jack Chick tracts.
Posted by: matt christman | Jan 30, 2007 12:43:19 PM
It seems to me, that if they enter a contract without compulsion or intimidation then whatever they agreed to as compensation is fair. If they want to do it for free, fine. If they get $1000 an hour, fine too.
If you have sex with someone who's too intoxicated to consent, you're a rapist. If you have someone sign a consent form who's too intoxicated to read it, you're a legitimate businessman? I'll disagree, thanks.
Posted by: August J. Pollak | Jan 30, 2007 12:49:34 PM
Fred, there's a reason that plaid bellbottom pants don't sell well. It's not because of the long arm of the law. It's because retailers do not want to suffer the economic consequences of selling them because of "activists" who insist that their employees wear dark suits to work and "activists" who mock and look down upon those who wear such clothing.
"The mob" you are so scared of is just another word for "the market," after all.
Posted by: Tyro | Jan 30, 2007 1:00:35 PM
Look, I'm not some prudish thumper, but come on... Joe Francis may be a worst case example, but there's plenty to be concerned about in porn, both in the industry and within what it presents. The internet has only expanded the options in staggering ways, plenty of which are at least problematic and some down right illegal and exploitative. And while I love liberals and the "whatever blows your hair back" approach to live and let live, I don't love that liberals can be a little cavalier about the moral implications about what goes into, and comes out of, making porn. Or the fact that porn and sexualized coarseness continue to seep into the rest of our culture. Sex is not evil and dirty; that doesn't make porn good and sweet and nice and kind or any other paragon of virtuous business practices. Douthat's sarcasm is a fair point - what people object to about Girls Gone Wild didn't start with Joe Francis and won't end however he eventually meets his comeuppance. And I think some of the outrage Francis gets has to do more with the class of girls he brings into the system, not that there's a larger problem with the world that created a Joe Francis (and his success) - which there certainly is.
Posted by: weboy | Jan 30, 2007 1:01:48 PM
"Sex is not evil and dirty"
Is the distinction that sex on camera is evil and dirty?
Posted by: Petey | Jan 30, 2007 1:13:29 PM
Ezra- only you can manage to work health care into a post about Girls Gone World. :)
Posted by: Matt S | Jan 30, 2007 1:16:54 PM
Ezra, why mention the point Ross is making, and Kristol's joke at liberal expense, and then pretty much illustrate the punch line? As weboy says, there's a serious issue here, and it isn't compensation. I think it's very dreamy to imagine that porn as it actually exists doesn't have an unhealthy effect on underage sex (which legal porn often simulates), as well as a less than great effect on sexuality in general in our culture. It isn't out there to enhance people's intimate relationships and lead to a sexual awakening; it's there to draw in as much money as possible, effects be damned. No more a good industry from the point of view of social effects than the food industry; possibly much less so because there is almost no regulation.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jan 30, 2007 1:31:22 PM
I'm always weirded out by the odd passivity when we talked about these things. Weboy mentions the "that porn and sexualized coarseness continue to seep into the rest of our culture." It doesn't "seep." We buy it. Support it. Ask for it. Watch TV shows with it. I'm not sure how you regulate the overwhelming preferences of the American consumer out of existence, but it seems tricky to me. Meanwhile, I am somewhat cavalier about porn. Not snuff films, or underage sex, but as Ross puts it, "all-American porn." Or pr0n, if you must. If done legally in in safe conditions with proper labor standards, i really don't think it's for me to decide you can't film intercourse and then sell it to those willing to watch.
Posted by: Ezra | Jan 30, 2007 1:52:43 PM
Fred, there's a reason that plaid bellbottom pants don't sell well. It's not because of the long arm of the law. It's because retailers do not want to suffer the economic consequences of selling them because of "activists" who insist that their employees wear dark suits to work and "activists" who mock and look down upon those who wear such clothing.
"The mob" you are so scared of is just another word for "the market," after all.
Typical expansion of definition for political purposes.
Ya know, if you are just too stupid to understand the meaning of the word
activist and differentiate it from the word market, then there is little chance of real communication, just your blather.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Jan 30, 2007 1:57:00 PM
*sigh*
Sanpete, you're not going to stop sex. And you're not going to stop porn. Porn goes back as far as humanity, probably further. And frankly, I don't want to--what adults watch in their own home is their own business, and if someone wants to watch a smutty tape, that's fine.
Basically, all Ezra's asking is this:
1. Porn actors should be fairly compensated;
2. They should have adequate benefits;
3. They should not be coerced into taking their jobs;
4. They should be adults, and legally able to enter into contracts.
All that seems to make sense to me. The offensive word in the Irving Kristol line is fourteen, not wage. If I see an eighteen-year-old dancer, damn right she should be getting paid an acceptable wage, and getting health care to boot. If she's fourteen, someone should be getting arrested, and right quick.
Posted by: Jeff Fecke | Jan 30, 2007 1:58:29 PM
If done legally in in safe conditions with proper labor standards, i really don't think it's for me to decide you can't film intercourse and then sell it to those willing to watch.
So you're a libertarian on porn. Your comment implies a solution that no one here has suggested. Recognizing the problems inherent in mainstream and less mainstream but still very legal pornography doesn't require that you burn your ACLU membership card and start petition drives to ban porn. Presumably there are more options in a free society than that. There are serious issues here that you are, indeed, cavalier about.
Jeff, stop sighing and respond to what I said, not what is easier to reject by being impossible. The problems with pornography aren't that it exists, but the forms it takes, as well as how it's produced (compensation isn't the main issue involved). Too many liberals appear to be afraid to even give serious thought to the effects of pornography.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jan 30, 2007 2:21:16 PM
To go further with the point Ezra's making, I'll go ahead and say prostitution should be decriminalized and regulated to maintain the health, safety, and well-being of sex workers. What makes pornography and prostitution problematic as industries isn't the work they do, but their existence in a regulatory limbo that allows their respective industries to greatly take advantage of them while exposing them to undue risk. Porn actors and prostitutes should be unionized and protected by strong federal labor and health statutes, the same as any other worker.
Posted by: Christmas | Jan 30, 2007 2:27:09 PM
I 1) agree on prostitution and 2) would like Sanpete to actaully mention the issues I'm ignoring, rather than simply repeatedly sighing about all the issues I'm ignoring. There's an element of concern trolling here, by the way, in that to talk about an element of porn (in this case, labor practices), you are not in fact responsible for engaging the politics of some odd fetish video somewhere.
Posted by: Ezra | Jan 30, 2007 2:29:58 PM
FJ, I said that "mob rule" was the same as "the market." You're the one who equated "activists" with "mob rule." I just completed the circuit.
In any case, "the market" is "whatever people do." If someone doesn't want to wear something because he or she can't handle the social consequences, that's "the market" working its magic. If people buy "power suits" because that's what their employers want, that's "the market" acting again. If pornographers are forced to pay their subjects better wages because of the social and public pressure placed upon them, that's the work of "the market" as surely as it would be if they had to raise prices to attract better talent.
Now, FJ, since when do you have a problem with "the free market"?
Posted by: Tyro | Jan 30, 2007 2:35:55 PM
"And you're not going to stop porn. Porn goes back as far as humanity, probably further."
Pssst. Where can I get me some Sabertooth and Velociraptor porn? Sounds hot.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jan 30, 2007 2:52:44 PM
Ezra, I don't see how anything I've said can be interpreted as sighing. I already mentioned the effects on underage sex, which a large segment of pornography tries hard to cash in on by making it appear attractive, enjoyable and desired by the underage. You're a feminist; I really find it a little hard to believe that you're not familiar with the many feminist critiques of pornography. The most common portrayals of women aren't especially conducive to feminist goals relating to power, respect, body image, and so on. I share weboy's concern about the coarsening of sexuality in our culture, as well as the saturation of everything by it.
There's an element of concern trolling here, by the way, in that to talk about an element of porn (in this case, labor practices), you are not in fact responsible for engaging the politics of some odd fetish video somewhere.
Baloney. You took a comment intended to get at just the kind of thing I'm talking about and sailed right past the point. Now that I've tried to bring you back to it you're griping about concern trolling. Just how much of this concern trolling have I done, if that's what you think it is? The last part of your response again shows your failure to take the serious seriously and to stick to what is said rather than easy straw men.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jan 30, 2007 3:06:39 PM
Isn't much (or at least some) of the porn content about rape or drugs or pressured consent not necessarily that this happens to the practitioners?
Posted by: BillCross | Jan 30, 2007 3:28:14 PM
From the standpoint of those who get paid, most porn is about desperation. You want to feed the coke habit, you need to get paid a lot and quickly.
Posted by: Garuda | Jan 30, 2007 4:24:00 PM
In the actual quote Kristol said "eighteen". So he's not saying Liberals don't care about underage exploitation.
Posted by: Jacob | Jan 30, 2007 4:29:56 PM
Chris: Are you drunk? I live in a red state, and we love porn. Here in Texas you can go to strip clubs and play Naked Twister with strippers (the strippers are naked, no t you).
Posted by: Walt | Jan 30, 2007 4:33:18 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
